The Sun. — London, England, 1836-03-29 00:00:00

IL, ti .ag uia ita la t e inag , ~ quid . ------.„,. - reldiytical body ? Was it that they should be an : 4 z4i _ I is : i f, ici b _ bad b e hiele L whhi : jee r: a r , s du t p h i r e o s ?—( Loud cheers He would appeal to the Site;_crP..tary for Ireland, whether he was not on.. He had sat throughout the debate, reason for this measure but the fanciful aria n ilae condition of England and Ireland. Let us, dit !nee "• . and Learned Gentleman, have the same obe li' e tin , t ° t l .le law in Ireland as in England, and then will be bit time. not for the same law, for that they have already__ of the same machinery for carrying that law into . opera. of tli --(Cheering.) Why, to what an extent must this state „ pi atgs have arrived when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ace ( ' ..' s ne (Mr. Shell), as appeared from the debate of a pre ..ai .;!n.g event Sheil), as appeared from the debate of a pre- Iti 0n -_.a gentleman of high character, and whose . '7, °vines rendered him fit for any constituency—at the peril of 0 ing his seat, was compelled to refuse, reluctantly, but still ,•i„iapelled to refuse, obedience to the law.—(Loud cheers.) - P ell .ad one word more to say on a subject about which they Roma had l beard a great deal —namely, that of the influence of the n Catholic priests. He would now read one extract I .141,?:_letter from Mr. Edward Fitzgerald to Mr. Vigors, the I' g / h ad for Carlow. The extract was as follows :- - ° ad a lo. ag le :resume' interview with the Bishop this day (nobody, 1 , I could doubt that it was a Roman Catholic Bishop) a bg-e" entirely with Wallace, and he has caused a circular I L 3n,e,,,,a_d'iressed to the different parish priests to ascertain ee _ I a m to.e nand in the county, and in the course of a wk ria It t • S . tuntnoit a meeting (private) of a few of the leading Vh,; c h ° r • the county, with the clergy, to meet . at my house, at you ,h__ neeting Wallace will be present ; in the meantime, av on le , ' aid be on the look out for candidates. The Bishop 'Nlty' ,'refer that you should be the person, on behalf of the O'cor Snellat should apply to Raphael rather than alo -.....n,„ (as the Bishop says) to dispose of the county." eai.„. mid laughter and cheering followed the reading of this t th, ,•; et.) Now he wanted to know whether they were not a • )111 k of the people that belonged to that class who,.wh . r cl rcular like that was sent would be influenced by their sp in z . e it.j r a e l i s s il e P s e u r e i n: Was it right ' that a spiritual superior should power over the people ? And what object would !us Bill effect but that of bindin.- the ties between them more '"eselY? Was it the object of tliose who pressed forward this • aneastu'e to induce the Catholic priest to assail the established 3 - t ? i li fi, nit of the country, and aim at the supremacy of the Ca ,ofeet.' religion ? Looking at the wealth and the population retola Protestants of Ireland, he did not believe that such . a b e I ,___ -- t tvali possible. But, if it were intended, would it not enzetter to say firmly to the Catholic at once, .eq . ual laws, o' l i. litlstice equal rights and privileges you shall have, but we P. - ":otest an ' Ir tChurch is . the Chutch by law established in eial ,V, and the Established Church it shall remain ?--(Loud agitate g•) Tell them, then, this, and they might cease to thu•-"te, meowing that agitation would be hopeless. He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that a prudent statesman should not run the risk of evil without the cert a i nty of . alio_ dest' - ° Y th 7ey torte purp ose 2 H e mig h t b e accused of wishing to 4a . e Corporati ons , b ut h e f e l t bound to support the •endrnent of his Hon. an d L earne d Friend.—( Loud cheers.) wool " ' SHEIL said that the speech of the Learned Member , tho (1 have been an exceedingly powerful . one against re Ca- Pa r ? etnalacipation, or against the extension to I land of . Carried, it Reform, but that those measurese_ havingpolicy been rarianceitwas preposterous to rely . upon ap li utterly at The Ilan ith the principles on which they were founded. the G ov Member had relied upon a . concession . made by TheernMent respecting the administration of justice. th e aPPaintMent of this sheriffs had been transferred to •aro wt , Hon. Member for Exeter, 1 e‘tahlish • This, said the th. : e d a distinction between England and Ireland,. w_ e h r er e e : ' itti,;ns'nee You have made this distinction, not abolish C p 4 p poi a; altogether ? Hi, - •: (Mr. Sheil) should answer,. that the ,e Dria e ll "rient of sheriffs was an incident to the existence f 11: ci : ate bodies, and not one of its elements; that Ireland a 111 ier•at'ltar_e,quire .an exact identity . in every particular, but . -101ila I,""nilation--that she did not ask . that . all the details ' 4 , 11 a1 0 ,„r the same, but that the principles should be 14 I' s ' ' che the architecture of the edifice, but let - ore r ee nd atio n 4 g , o p I control remain untouched. Although I n, l it C e oe ; ll, o •t r s at o io f n .' s lus P tis ' ie u v a a e n r r influence will cease to be exercised Corporations a safe and salutary tioa of e will ,tIIT t t e c exercised by the people. Thenomitnae el,are of iheriff s is taken away, but much is left behind . ;• h o _ t ue 4 direl. ;'t of local concerns, the guardianship f a, „I'll') lie T , '.- Y 1: 1 4.'a tt t „ • r e ne .e, the' security and convenience of -public l' et zea - Im Prfrition of taxes, their apportionment and c t o h l e - Rtt„ , and tl ' ,- (a o , i'a management of it corporate property. s , 'Pazt y h - .0 nsequence ? Try by this test, the Drapers e se e ~ . estates Londonderry; pro P° '4v ''' in ° Pao 1n0 Co that Company to transfer their estates . to the t h e , la c ! th would such ' et ''' ' w a suggestion be received ? .How Jr p asse di 1, the, is the project to leave to English . Corporations t h ‘ si ,S,t's ~rstates, and to strip . Irish Corporations of their e et rat . , sf • I (said Mr. Shell) acknowledge that I regard as - lea h el ' of the right to nominate sheriffs as not only . a con_n tea !f . 1 cti saerific: ; and I, . for one, would not acquiesce i 11e Llet ded : tcot feel that something, nay, that much, ought to ri t : 4 4 Iv In . order to adjust those . questions without the set el 1 ilt , pe i- which peace in Ireland is Impossible and etaprospe enl et, a ss; and if, after this step towards a compromise has i r l le mtarily taken by the Government,.the Bill shall . be oa t , e, „,rejected, .orthere t re . what . the , .'the -mast repudiate, and if, by this expedient (for it is s hall 1,1 abuse s of Corporations, the vitiation of justice, 'a atler ; the , I.le of corporate revenues, and political profligacy, aft ; . d ,i, P er petuated, the people of . ought to ' England will know s t tab."s"e blame of that scandalous continuance . i anxious, at j far ~,, will determine between the men who are t i ."•, it i s . of aloes Practicable, to extend the benefit of British in h ' ho se ' and those who had so long and minute a cognizance ' 1' :t, nil abases never applied to them a remedy , and at ' 0 4 al, • e n with impunity they can no longer ' be pal_- 1 'lt • 14 nr 14 1 . , ol jt i_ der to escape correction have recourse to mock e' eh ° ll and send up to the House of Lords a project to al th e ' ai a r ae e C ommons of England, Ireland, . 4, the only and Scotland never 1 ) 11 tull e "e• I turn from the details of this question thisto the allbe en _ one, on which ia, th at treated. All that has been said against the opposition to Bill . I this Bill, 14 ceioujetts been insidiously insinuated, boldly stated, lea Pea , y inferred, and against " old friends and col is It '"rtiallat"e,nttirneliously quoted, can, into a very short and ve ; i 4 41 t l7 f amiliar phrase, " No Popery," be condensed. he.. -e NU t 4t 11 we are once armed with power, we shall 1 1 `• ! e3(ampise' afhitrary, and oppressive—that we shall follow Li `tre st ants f g:lren us—and that, by a Catholic combination, ~e 1 ,shire niara4nt corporations will be excluded. It is not a " coul d ' N ob e that two Noble Lords, the Members for Lan-, / as ,_,, h„ 4 , and South, who have touched on this topic, : a-teb"oit? t i oei r eni an . Catholics at the . election,. have been pro ' 'ho• e t il l co ustituents. But it will be suggested that hay at ,h England and Ireland are very different. I You sie.. aer e, h Popery was ever you will ob i ' at T' in y latitude the same. Tir t ~rt, a m . oWever, a very different priesthood, .nit',Tiglan,llll Ireland you fear a sacerdotal ascendancy, which O r ged ;... Yon have no reason to apprehend. Noman te ho e s ti a n th e `ll°l.e eloquently and pathetically upon this pi e fromaa h 4ion. Member for Cumberland. That night . th ns Baronet Member relieved from those nautical occupations addqer ived%/1 formerly the illustrations of his eloquencewere . nr _.th ere 3.8 reeemtly taken to the consolations of religion ot,ion, th at treason to apprehend, from the of his late tilt: ! ox , e ut . hat ex-first Lord of the Admiralty has sought d o e I ngli s 00,,artyrs" a manual of legislation, and that he reads tvh•liet believe`"e times by the light of the Smithfield fires. I le lt i that the speeches of the Catholic priests to he I t h e , has referred are accurately reported an i! I ateuestho"to consider them as affording grounds for increasin g ler; 4 Y4 o , 3 4 tb s , and for establishing a higher class of rhetoric Is h 4t ive r • - ' But mark the inconsistency between the Con fornl-es eeZesering and assertion. We arc told that there Con t' Yet all on between parliamentary and municipal re la con d the arguments against municipal elections from d • act e f it e rtv e o . the Catholic clergy on parliamentary elections a t i: j aalo I ,Now, if the argument were good for anything, N, PBl i n _ e an to the abolition of parliamentary, not of . mu t h:tee etahartotions. For my own part, I avow the inter lan 'ge n e msts at elections if it gratifies the Noble Lord al: , ar l o t e t; for L ancashire,' and the Member for Cumber cin.4Y iliterfte..will .add, that in no instance did the Catholic A ep -' the Ref 'e with more effect than in 1831, in order to ea e le nifiorm Bill, when those Honourable Gentlemen ' e4l office • and I til l r a t e r ( th o s e do not, I own, recollect that on that ell ta '3' farl:asistance to which the Government, of which )41 1 ;.!aro t n e4 „. k.part, were indebted. They were silent on NI - ` 0 a tAi's Itiel Ple on which the Conservatives upon Coi:- %el le t° Pal e : 4° long held their tongue. But how does it Vir tt r l tn aral 4 , 11 '4 the Catholic priests enjoy a monopoly of Nan es ina• e l• ? Have not the landlords some claim to their ta t o; Yof th 'gnation ? They denounce what they call the . ty e44 °at e 1 1, ri estbood ; but when they see whole families "re . - • e g, . 4 hu ndreds from their hovels--women without fo r ''' as , a f hand children without food, to perish—for these alelect hes e ir,ernan wr etchedness have they no compassion? And l ' bons h'esera.ble m who to these terrible expedients after t ~ale rec ourse e , ll hav e they no indignation ? .But after there etparg,Oct of the priests at Parliamentary elections have fta l , l be t , eections has nothing to do. What connection is " ono :ell tithes and borough -rates, between Cormation bili ,1 efeueetirensanguined treasure of the Church? . On a mu . - Poh,„ t . to a ,. " 1 1, I cannot conceive any one question by possi -I'4 'cal, ~''se on which the priesthood can take the least t hat a nient • a ers enal, or any other imaginabl e concern. But in Mhi e detestaU elections what is at stake? The abolition of a, a h as l e in;post which has drenched Ireland in blood— alllhie ?,0, mkiPrenvdeureed atrocities. from which . every feeling of hu e, , ti g h t , y sentiment of' religion are abhorrent, and ?lee r atieo to Make certain religious men whom I see before r e ' th at Pn'ti and pray to God every night, before they feire., St oe .ar Rathcorrnac they ' may be forgiven. Inter aeikt. Ctio ns , t 'i 1 3 il l Ur i" ' Who brok e . achieved ' Yes • thei Were - the men who jes. .. down the power of the er _ 14. tar:tlyetecraf_?ral,_ annihilated the . Fosters in Louth, and ~e t lesjaPid Peasant" the Clare election. Led on by . them e 't et into witht''asantry rushed to the hustings wilt' the I IN I ?Not, which Irish soldiers precipitif te them i'd% .1101riatiollneorbr.e,aeeh, drove Toryism from its h.'old, and of the ti, vet urt.the tsrannleir country planted the irn:aioveable stand noble. c - au - se they of r RY of li t he tith e , th et _ 1r00,.., question shallP..evotedly persevere. ' 41 4 y h g r i ev au intermit theia ' justly adjusted will the ) 'clai 0 ref e ° flees to N al • .... efforts to achieve the redress 1,, litreOo ea rrea. p ..,ice the disturbed state of Ireland al 4 e to • aut you that talk of the Irish clergy, have 1 1 tate r (1) ,„ s „- Look at home? Do your priesthood never in V t vl I ,l_ 1 1 7 1 10 Ines interpose. I ask the Hon. Member for Vas ,erneth,3l,"as read a letter from a Catholic Bishop of Car t Iseeorred to the the Bishop of Exeter he bas ever heard? He " 4 61 ' is .'Ct . 4l, - ' the Popish Doctor Nolan —has he no reason " -.le p `"e Protestant Doctor Phillpotts ? That Learned ,c oti n 4 ot s,rpr:sl.ot,e. admire for his great talents, but surely they niea 'a as soc .* Ms political zeal, which with his religious erne / i s 4 : fo r the late& All that I ask is, that allowance should be ata,„.raateri atholic Bishop on one hand, by these whose cause ' If tahlY Promoted by the Protestant Prelate upon the e Intimidation committee contains evidence as to the Catholic priesthood in Carlow, surely there is very remarkable evidence as to the body of Protestant clergy in Devonshire. But turn to Ireland. Do the clergy of the Established Church never interpose ? Has this House never heard of the Rev. Mr. Boyton ? He is a man of great abilities, with the most distinguished qualifications for popular excite ment. He may be regarded as the founder of the Brunswick Clubs, and as having been mainly instrumental in producing the strong Protestant feeling in Ireland. That Rev. Gen tleman was a chaplain of the Orange Society ; it is proved in evidence before the Orange Committee, that he actually moved the creation of an Orange Lodge in one of his Ma jesty's Regiments. Well, this was the individual whom my Lord Haddington selected to officiate as one of his chaplains at the !Castle. Talk, indeed, of the Catholic clergy ! In November, 1834, a meeting of the Orange Society was held in Dublin, at which the Lord Mayor of the city of Dublin presided, and at which the Rev. Mr. M`Crea recited a poem, the burden of which was— " Then put your trust in God, my boys, And keep your powder dry ! " Show me any of our prose equal to his poetry. I forbear from making any comments on it, and shall but observe that although it has often been mentioned in this House, I never heard it made the subject of Conservative condemnation. Sir, I think that I can demonstrate that every objection on a reli gious ground, so far as the Church is involved, to municipal reform in Ireland, was just as applicable to municipal reform in England. It is said that Corporations were established in Ireland to maintain the Protestant interest. For what pur pose were the Test and Corporation Acts passed in this coun try ? They were enacted in order to protect the Episcopal in terest in England against the influence and energy of the Dissenters. They were regarded as the great bulwarks of the Establishment ; yet those bulwarks you surrendered in 1828 to the myriads of sectaries by which your Church was encom passed : to Baptists, Quakers, Socinians, Independents, Pres byterians, Methodists—you threw open the fortresses of the Establishment to all the hordes, who, with the voluntary prin ciple, are battering your Church to the earth ; and when we, who are akin to you (for your religion is only Popery cut down)—when we, from whose ecclesiastical escutcheon your own, with a bar sinister, might be appropriately borrowed— when we, I say, demand the benefit of British institutions, you affront us with a proposition which, to the Dissenters of this country—when the Test and Corporation Acts were at stake, and when Corporation reform was in question—not one of you, not even in the House of Lords, ever dared to make. The Duke of Wellington had not the boldness, my Lord Lynd hurst had not the dexterity, my Lord Winchilsea was not sufficiently excited, nor my Lord Roden sufficiently in spired—it was reserved for us—it was reserved for colonial dependent Ireland, for us, on whom a faction trampled, but on whom, with God's blessing, and the aid of our deter mination, they shall tread no more—for us, it was reserved that we should be told, when to the interests of the thousand few the rights of the million many can no longer with com mon decency be sacrificed—that both from the few and from the many their national institutions should be taken away, and out of the ruins of the Corporations Dublin Castle should be enlarged. Of the Act of Union is not this a manifest infringe ment ? When it is proposed in this House to reduce the sinecures of the Established Church, men- cry out and say that the Union is violated; if the entire of the Irish Corporations are swept away, and that against the will of the majority of the Irish Members, will not the Union be trampled under foot ? But, it may be said, so indeed it was observed by the Learned Member for Exeter, that before the Union Corporations were Protestant. He forgets that by the Act of 1793, Roman Ca tholics were made admissible to Corporations by law, but that from 1793 to 1829, not a single Catholic was received into the Dublin Corporation. In 1829, the Member for Tamworth de clared in his emancipation speech that Roman Catholics should be admitted to all Corporate offices, and should be invested with all municipal privileges ; there are accordingly two sec tions in his Emancipation Act to that effect. From that day to this, not a single Roman Catholic has had th e b ene fi t o f those cloaks in the Act of Parliament. By passive resistance, a Protestant passive resistance, the law has been frustrated and baffled. The Right Hon. Baronet gave us a key that would not turn the lock ; and when British justice is about to burst open the doors, he would level the institutions to the earth, and bury our rights, his own Act of Emancipation— (God forbid that I should add, his dignity and good faith) — under the ruins. Sir, the Hon. Gentleman appears to me to adhere to his old Irish policy, and although he carried emanci pation in obedience to his reason, he is acting on emancipa tion, in compliance with those religious instincts which he ought to get under his control. In the course of the last ses sion I ventured to address myself to him in the language of strenuous, but most unaffectedly respectful expostulation. I presumed to entreat of him to take a retrospect of his Irish policy, and to inquire from him whether of every failing, and every failure, he did not in his Irish policy find the cause. I told him that Ireland had a grave ready for his Administration, and that grave soon closed upon it. I should not venture to advert to what I then said, but what has since befallen has given to those observations a remarkable confirmation. The moment the session of Parliament terminated, the subordi nates of the Right Honourable Baronet commenced the " No Popery" cry. The result of that pious enterprise has corresponded with its deserts.—( Hear, hear.) The Parliament assembles, and at the very outset the Right Hon. Baronet tries his fortune on Irish ground again, by moving an amendment, and he is at once and signally defeated. A few days elapse, and he sustains a still more conspicuous dis comfiture. Not in order to give way to a feeling of inglorious exultation do I refer to the dissolution of the Orange Society, but for the purpose of showing the " sweet uses" of which adversity is susceptible, and leaving out the offensive epithets in the citation to point to the " bright and precious jewel" it contains. It was a vast and most powerful incorporation, including a hundred thousand armed men, with individuals of the highest station among its leaders, and a Prince of the blood at its head. Where is it now ? Can you not derive admonition from its fall? You have seen Admi nistration after Administration dissolved by the power of the Irish people : by the' power of the Irish people you have seen your own Cabinet dashed in an instant to pieces, and now, struck to the heart, you behold your own gigantic auxiliary laid low. Taught so long, but uninstructed still, wherefore, in the same fatal policy, with an infatuated perti nacity do you disastrously persevere ? You think, perhaps, that emancipation has failed. Six years in a nation's life are less than as many minutes of individual duration. You have not given it, what you asked for yourself, a fair trial, and have yourself, to a certain extent, counteracted its operation. At the very outset you entered into a struggle with the son of the earth, " who has rebounded with fresh vigour from every fall," and, notwithstanding all your experience—although injustice carries with it the principle of self-frustration-- although the poisoned chalice is sure in its inevitable circulation to return to the lips of those by whom it is compounded— still, adhering to your fatal policy and haunted by your anti- O'Connellism—still, instead of rising to the height of the great arguments, and ascending to a point of moral and political elevation from which you could see wide and far—you be hold nothing but the objects which by their closeness be come magnified, and have nothing but the fear of O'Connell before your eyes. You do not legislate for a people, but against a man. Even if I were to admit that he had been oc casionally hurried into excesses, for which your impolicy should in reality be responsible, give me still leave to ask whether millions of his fellow-countrymen, and your fellow citizens (for such, thank God, we are), and generations yet unborn, must pay the penalty ? Granting him a life as long as Ireland can pray, and his adversaries can deprecate, will he not be survived by the statute book ? Have you made him immortal as well as omnipotent? Is your legislation to be built on considerations transitory as the breath with which he speaks, and are structures which should last for ages to have no better basis than the miserable antipathies by which we are distracted ? Let us remember, in the discharge of the great judiciary functions that are imposed upon its that we are not only the trustees of great contemporary interests, but of the welfare of those by whom we are to be succeeded ; that our measures are in some sort testamentary, and that we bequeath to posterity a blessing or a bane ; and, impressed with that high, and I do not exaggerate when I call it that holy consciousness, let us have a care lest to a sentiment of miserable partisanship we should give way. To distinctions between Catholic and Protestant, let there be an end. Let there be an end to national animosities, as well as to sectarian detestation. Perish the bad theology that inverts the Scrip tures, makes God according to man's image, and with infernal passions fills the heart of man k perish the bad nationality that substitutes for the genuine love of country a feeling of despotic domination upon your part, and of provincial turbu lence upon ours; and while on spurious religion and spurious notoriety I pronounce my denunciation, live, let me be per mitted to add, the spirit of genuine philanthropic forbearing and forgiving Christianity amongst us ; and combined with it live the exalted patriotism, which to the welfare of a great people, and the glory of this majestic empire, of all its wishes makes the dedication, which superior to the wretched passions that ought to be short-lived as the passing incidents of which they were born, acts in conformity with the imperial policy of William Pitt, and the results of the vast invention of James Watt, sees the legislation of the one ratified by the science of the other, in the discovery of the mighty mechanist, who made the Irish Channel like the Tweed, of the project of the son of Chatham beholds the consummation. Mr. S. WORTL Y rose to rescue himself from the ana themes of the Hon. and Learned Member for Tipperary when lie asserted that all the arguments on his side of the House turned on "No Popery." He renounced the imputation. He had been the advocate of Catholic Emancipation, because he believed that it was an act of strict justice; and he had always acknowledged the necessity of corporate reform in England, and supported it with all his power. If he did not accede, therefore, to the measure before the House, it was not be cause he was actuated by sectarian principles or a desire to do aught except justice to Ireland, but because the circumstances of the two countries were so widely different. He acceded to the whole principle of the Bill as far as regarded the abolition of the Corporations, but he could go no farther. He should not attempt to answer the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member for Tipperary, but he would ask the House were there no indications in it of party spirit, or any observations savouring of a hope of retaliation ? The speech of the Hon. Member for Tipperary was evidently spoken for the purpose of sowing dissension, and his reference to the report of the Intimidation Committee might be taken in illustration of the fact. He had taken the liberty of connecting the name of Dr. Philpotts with the evidence given before that Committee; but be (Mr. S. Wortley) was, confident that the name of Dr. Philpotts did not once occur in the entire Report. The Hon. Member should bo more cautious. Mr. SHE IL—I did not say so. I did not mention the name of Dr. Philpotts in connection with that Committee. Mr. S. WORTLE Y continued. He deprecated the prin ciple of the Bill as a partial and impolitic transfer of power from the few to the many, far different from the legitimate extension of powers recognised by the Constitution to all classed in the great measure a 1819. He would characterise their partisan policy in the w rds of the Hon. Member for St. Alban's, and he was confident that all who viewed it impartially would agree in its reprobation. You are taking power from the weak to give it to the strong—from the few to bestow it on the many, and stripping the dwarf to clothe th e g i an t. Henceforth the minority in Ireland would be at the mercy of the majority—a principle which also had its eulogists in that House ; but he would say, thank God we have not yet arrived at the tyranny of the majority.—( Oh, oh.) Mr. GISBORNE commented on the part taken by the Hon. Member for Oxford ( Sir R. Inglis) in the debate, whose opinions, whether in the majority or minority, always com manded respect. It appeared that the object of him and his party, in the present debate, was to avoid extending power to the popular party in Ireland. When the Right Hon. Baro net the Member for Tamworth invited him to follow him in the cause of Reform, he had suspicions of the character of that Reform, which his previous conduct had not tended to allay.— ( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had never willingly extended power to the popular party. He had, in so doing, always acted under the pressure of apprehension.—( Hear.) The time for Reform, they were assured, had never come when the Right Hon. Baronet securely held the reins of power. He rejoiced that all sections of the Opposition were pledged to oppose this measure, for it would afford him and other thorough-going Reformers all the strength and efficacy which results from a union into which they were compelled by inevitable re-action. He condemned the propositions of destruction urged on the part of this opposition as most un necessary and inconsistent. If on a motion for the reform of the Irish Church some hot-headed Radical should get up and propose as an amendment the abolition of the Church altoge ther, he could not act more inconsistently. What would be the fate of this ill in the other House he knew not ; but if, in passing :rough it, it should be altered, injured in any material degree, he thought the House would display a most unworthy spirit if it should tamely submit to the de gradation. Sir ROBERT PEEL said—Sir, I have been labouring under every possible discouragement ; I doubt if I shall be able to make myself intelligible ; but after the pointed speech of the Hon. Member for the county of Tipperary (who, I trust, is present to hear my reply, after the direct personal appeal he has made to me) I confess I should be unwilling to let it pass without some observations, confident as I am in the justice of my cause. Being fully aware at the same time of the powerful effect which the brilliant speech of the Hon. Gentleman must have made on the House, I feel naturally anxious to examine and analyze it, and to attempt (without any similar effort at effect) at once to grapple with its reasons, if any can be found in it, for that is, after all, the main point for the House to look to.—(Hear.) For my own part I could wish it bad been less prepared, and we might have had more free and useful development of argument ; but the Hon. Member was apparently in such - haste to arrive at the brilliant and ornate parts of his speech, which he was well aware would amuse and delight his hearers, that he abstained from dwelling on the more homely materials of argument and inference which might have been expected in the advocacy of a measure of the importance that the present avowedly is. —(Hear, hear.) It was particularly remarkable that the Hon. Member care fully abstained from all reference to the argumentative, power ful, and most convincing speech which immediately preceded his own.—( Hear, and laughter.) It was, in reality, more remarkable for acuteness of style and brilliancy of diction than for any attention to facts in general, or the subject before the House in particular. —( Hear.) But, whether present or absent, I must do the Hon. Member for Tippe rary the justice to say, that his talents and eloquence in vests all he utters with a charm of a powerful character, and that Ireland should be justly proud of his genius.— ( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, let us closely examine the deco rated robe in which the Hon. Gentleman has arrayed himself on this occasion ; let us detach, if possible, the purpurei panni —the ornament of art from the coarser texture of garment which it overlaid. The Hon. Member had taken three points of consideration for our conviction, on the ground of inconsis tency, in opposing this motion. First, he had doubted whe ther the spirit of the Irish Corporations was not at variance with the Act of Union, and whether this measure could be re sisted without trampling that Act in spirit and letter under foot. Secondly, he doubted whether the spirit of the corpo rations was not at variance with the Reform Act ? and, thirdly, whether they were not opposed to the whole tenor and object of the Relief Bill of 1829 7 But these were points of specu tation beside the real argument of the night. It was very easy to construct a striking sentence compounded of " the boldness of the Duke of Wellington"—" the dexterity of Lord Lynd hurst"—" the excitement of the Earl of Winchilsea," and " the inspiration of the Earl of Roden"—(Laughter)—but these were not the matters in debate.—(Hear, hear.) It was also an extremely attractive expedient to introduce the name of Dr. Philpotts and the Intimidation Committee, though it ap peared the charge was half intended to refer to my Hon. Friend the Member for Exeter in answer to a strong appeal on his part to facts in Ireland on the subject of Priestly inter ference at elections. What was the answer of the Hon. Member for Tipperary? " Yes, I refer you to the Intimida tion Committee. Have you never heard of Dr. Philpotts ?" Now what an injurious conclusion might be drawn from this very unwarrantable use of the name of that Rev. Prelate, by those who were not aware of the fact that it did not once occur in the report of that Committee Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member makes strong use of the arguments previously urged by us against any interference with the Established Church of Ireland as being an infraction of the Act of Union, and urges as a corrollary that it is equally unconstitutional to think of destroying the corporations ; but the Hon. Gentleman forgets that there is an express clause in the Act of Union in favour of the Irish Church, but none whatever in favour of the corpora tions.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman says that, while in power, we invariably refused all redress against corporate abuses, but this is not the fact. We never refused to reform anything attaching to corporate rnanageuent which we found amiss, or to redress any just cause of complaint in those Cor porations. It was necessary that the Imperial Parliament should exist, and the Catholic Relief Bill of 1829 only followed up the Act of 1800, in affording it the broadest and most secure basis. Pointed reference has been made to the Act of 1829, and to the part which I took in its accomplishment, as well as to the further consecutive steps now requisite. The Honourable Member for Tippe rary is well aware that the expectations formed at that period of the promised peace and concord to follow have been very completely disappointed.—( Hear, hear.) It is utterly in vain now to deny that, after the passing of that measure, there was not in Ireland as much acerbity of feeling and as much of reli gious animosity as there had been previously. This, however, does not at all alter my view of the measure of Catholic Emancipation. I believed then, as I now believe, that, con sidering the state of the Protestant mind in this country at the time, considering the powerful support the measure had in this House, considering the accession of strength the question was, year after year, obtaining in the public mind, considering the state of Ireland, I think now, as I thought then, that further resistance would not be safe, and that great danger must re sult from a further delay of the measure. Such was my opi nion then. Such it is now ; and events which occurred not long after make me now rejoice that the measure was then successful. But, says the Honourable and Learned Gen tleman (Mr. Sheil), the reason why political dissensions, why religious animosities, still continue, is, that you then did not go far enough. He says that in 1829 the concession was made in an ungenerous spirit, that it could not have been conciliatory, as it contemplated the ex_ elusion from that House of an individual, alluding to the Ho n . and Learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin. In a case of this kind, where there were so many important circum stances to be taken into consideration, so many interests to be conciliated, so many conflicting opinions to be reconciled, it could be no very difficult matter to select one incident, and to say that by that Incident the whole was vitiated. I entirely dis avow having been actuated upon that occasion by any per sonal feeling against the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen. Personal considerations never entered into the contemplation of those who took a lead upon that occasion, but they took the course which, under all the circumstances, they judged most likely to ensure the success of the measure. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, was returned for Clare, under the existence of a law which excluded him from a seat in that House, except upon the condition of taking a certain oath. That oath lie could not take conscientiously, and there remained no alternative but exclusion. But, says the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ( Mr. Sheil), this circum stance should have been provided against in the Bill. Now if we had done so, if we had made the measure retrospective, instead of being, as it was solely, prospective, what would be now the language of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Member for Tipperary ? They were often told the measure had been extorted from their fears. Had it been so arranged as to meet this particular case, had a retrospective clause been introduced allowing the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) to take his seat for Clare, .would it have weakened the cry of intimidation—would not that charge of yielding to fear be urged, and justly urged now, with tenfold t d b o r t c y e , ?—and( Che e l r s. now ) t T o h b e e A t o c l t d ot that t l 8 e 2 11 1) t b w e a g s o a o n d e e l e e o t f s public wbie b would otherwise have arisen from it were lost because the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was prevented from taking his seat for Clare ? Far be it from me to say or to sus pect that the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. O'Connell) had since pursued the course he did from merely personal mo tives, from a recollection of this one circumstance. We were, however, confidently told that the Emancipation Bill once passed, agitation would cease. This prediction is not veri fied ; and now the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Tipperary comes forward and urges further concession as the only means of putting an end to agitation. If such be opinion of the Hon. and Learned Gent leman, it is his duty to show that further concession w ill have this effect.— (Cheers.) I will read a letter fr o m Gentleman who could have been influenced by no co n s i d erations towards me of a private or personal nature, and who had long acted as Secre tary to the Catholic Association; I mean Mr. Purcell O'Gor man. (Here the Right Hon. Baronet read the letter. It com menced by an acknowledgment of the services rendered to the Catholics of Ireland by Sir R. Peel in his successful advocacy of the Emancipation Bill, stating that by this measure he had made ample compensation for all his previous hostility, and that at the expense of the greatest personal sacrifices. He had no doubt that the best results would follow from that all-healing measure, and for himself he entertained no other than the deepest feelings of gratitude for the support given by him (Sir Robert Peel) to the Catholic Relief Bill.) Now, I will put it to the House whether this letter does not express feelings and anticipations very different to those which we have heard upon the present occasion from the Hon. Member for Tipperary ? So far, therefore, as the opinion of Mr. Purcell O'Gorman be of any value or import ance his letter to me gives no ground to suspect that the exclusion of the Hon. Member for Dublin from a seat for Clare prevented the Emancipation Bill from effecting the great object of conciliation. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Tipperary asks why it was that we did not pass the Relief Bill in 1825, as well as in 1829 ; , 2 for, said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, it was accom panied in 1825 with two securities which the measure of 1829 had not. I never was more surprised than at hearing this declaration from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. One of these securities to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman alludes, as accompanying the Bill of 1825, was the extinction of the forty-shilling freeholders ; and the other a provision from the public )urse for the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ire - land. Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman forget that in 1829 the abuse of the forty-shilling freeholders was removed? And as to a provision for the Catholic Clergy of Ireland, I never was aware until this moment that it was desired by them. I did, on the contrary, understand that such a proposal was received with something not far removed from indignation— that it was objected to alike by the priesthood and the laity.—_ ( Cheers.) That Hon. and Learned Gentleman says that the Act of 1829, which removed the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics laboured, gave them a new and specific inte rest in the existence of the Irish Corporations; and he asks, am I not inconsistent, after successfully advocating the mea sure of 1829, in now refusing them the advantages of muni cipal rights; in endeavouring to overthrow Corporations alto gether, and thus depriving the Catholics of what they ought, and were fully entitled, to enjoy in the spirit of that measure which I myself brought forward in 1829. I must say that in this part of his speech the Hon. and Learned Member seems• to have produced a powerful effect upon the House, but it must have arisen more from his brilliancy of phrase, and from having drawn largely on the feelings or on the fancy of the House, than from any force of argument or con clusiveness of reasoning. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman says the Roman Catholics have an interest in preserving the corporations of Ireland, that they are no less interested in their existence and in their admissibility to them than in the exis- tence of other offices. They are admissible, says he, to the army, to the navy, to all offices, civil and military; and are they to be deprived now of municipal rights ? Is that my pro position? Is there not a vast difference between this, and saying, I will not destroy municipal Corporations, but I will take care that there shall be no abuse —(Cheers)—that the monopoly which before was the object of complaint shall not exist in another shape.—(Cheers.). We say our object is not to destroyt he Corporations, that they shall continue, but not under such circumstances ; that all power must be in the hands as much of a party as it was before. That this would be the result was not attempted to be concealed. •It was impossible to deny that it must necessarily be so. What said the Honourable Member for Northamptonshire ? " Do I deny," said the Honourable Member, " that this Bill will give power to the majority in Ireland ? No," said he, " I rejoice that it will give power to those who are as seven to one of the population." (Cheers from the Ministerial benches.) The Hon. Gentleman, therefore, and those with whom he acts, foresee very clearly that the result of this measure will be to transfer corporation monopoly from the Protestants of Ireland to the Catholics, and the Hon. Gentleman exults in the prospect of the unqualified, the unmitigated, exclusion of the Protestants. "It will," said he, "be a transfer of power, but a transfer into the hands of the majority, who by right are entitled to it." I sincerely believe that it will have that effect—that in place of removing it will perpetuate the evils which it is proposed to remedy—that it will lead to civil and religious animosities, even more rancorous than those by which the country is now harassed. lam ready to admit the force of the prima facie analogy drawn between this country and Ireland as regards municipal reform. But if the analogy will not hold throughout—if I find circumstances connected with municipal reform in Ireland which are not to be found in this country—if a principle must necessarily come into opera tion there which is not at work here—then I say you are not right in following out the analogy. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman (the Member for Tipperary) said that my Administration could not stand, that at the moment of its for. mation my grave, as the head of that Administration, was dug deep in Ireland. In this respect I am not much worse off than many of those who have been most highly lauded by the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Their graves were dug as deep as mine, and they were treated with equal, if not greater neglect than I, who never presumed to consider my self entitled to their gratitude. We now hear a great deal about acting upon analogies with England, because it serves the purpose of the moment. It was not long, however, since a Noble Lord (Duncannon) was reminded by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member fOr Dublin, of the injuries that Noble Lord and his colleagues were inflicting upon Ire land by following English analogies.—[Here the Right Hon. Baronet read a long extract from a letter of Mr. O'Connell, written in 1834 to Lord Duncannon, condemning in the strongest language the policy pursued by Lord Grey's Govern ment towards Ireland.] If ever there was a plan more effectually devised than another to promote agitation, to give triumph to one party and discontent to another, to ex cite civil and religious animosities—it is this. Here we have Commissioners empowered to tax not only for the salary of mayors, and other corporate officers, but for every other officer they may please to appoint. Take, for instance, the first and the last on the list of these Corporations. Now, Belturbet, the first on, the scale, has a population of 2,000. Here a power is given to tax for the erection of a building for corpo rate purposes, for cleansing, lighting, and paving, and pay ment of officers. At the same time towns, with a much larger population are entirely omitted. Ardfert, for instance, is called a village in the report. It has, however, a larger po pulation than Belturbet, but has not the honours of a corpora- tion. It might be said that Belturbet is an improving place, rising in wealth and population—that it is a prosperous corpo ration. Judge from the amount of its funds. The whole amount to 91.—(A laugh)—and the clear revenue 41. a year; and this place, with such funds, is to be burthened with the charges of a house, a mayor, and corporate officers, while places having a population of 6,000 or 7,000, are to be quite exempt from all these burthens. Take the city of Dublin. This Bill gives to Dublin a Mayor and a town-council ; but it gives no right of appointing either a sheriff or a recorder. It is to have a mayor and town council, but the care of paving, lightiag, watching, and improving the harbour, are not to be transferred' to the new Corporation. What was the natural in ference to be drawn from this ? Why, no other can be drawn but that the new corporation is to be exclusively political. —(Cheers.) Such a system can lead to nothing but agita tion, animosity, and discontent. I feel assured at the same time, and I am perfectly ready to admit that no good object can be gained by retaining the old Corporations. I will con sent, therefore, to their abolition. We are ready to extinguish existing abuses, but when you attach a condition to the con tinued existence of municipal Corporations in which condition we cannot concur no course remains for us but to refuse our assent.—( Cheers.) The Hon. and Leariied Gentle man said that it was the spiritual influence of the priest hood that carried the removal of the political disabilities under which the Roman Catholics of Ireland laboured. So far it might be right that the spiritual influence of the priesthood should be exercised; but when the Hon. and Learned Gentleman also tells us that the same spiritual influence was exercised to carry Reform, can he be sur prised that when he declares that he thinks it glorious that that spiritual influence should have been exercised for the promotion of a merely civil object—can he be surprised, I say, or think it unjust that we should refuse to consent to the creation of a new mode of exercising that influence by the erection of fifty popular assemblies, through the medium of which that influence shall be exerted for the spread of the political power of the priesthood ?—(Hear, hear, hear.) The Honourable and Learned Gentleman re fers with triumph to the annihilation of the power of the Beresfords in one county and of the Fosters in another, as having been the result of the influence of the Irish priesthood. Then, I say, that, for the sake of that common religion which we all profess, and from the spirit of which nothing can be farther than the practices which the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman has shown, if the boast of the Hone and Learned. Gen. ieman is well founded, I have a right to say that I do not think it will conduce to its legitimate influence,' to its mainte nance, or to the spread of Protestant institutions throughout Ireland that this new sphere should be created, in which the same influence may be exerted, and that, too, under circum stances calculated to do much more serious injury to the cause of religion and good government than any popular election for mere political purposes could effect. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman has declared his belief that the Roman Catholic priesthood may legitimately continue to exercise their spiritual influence over political affairs, and after that admission of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's, I must say that, while I re tain my determined desire to place Roman Catholics and Pro testants on a perfeot footing of civil equality, I will not con sent to the establishment of institutions which must be des tructive to that equality, which will afford a new scope for the exercise of that influence which, he thinks, may legitimately be directed to the ruin of the Protestant Church. I will not allow the erection of a vehicle for the promotion of adverse in terests, which are to be directed towards the annihilation or the humiliation of the established religion in Ireland.—(The Right Hon. Baronet then sat down amidst loud cheering.) Mr. O'L OG HLEN would not detain the House more than a few moments, while he replied to certain observations which had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter on the subject of the original constitution of the cor porations in Ireland. If be had rightly understood the Hon. and Learned Member he had said that a great number of these corporations had been established for the benefit of the Protestant inhabitants, to the exclusion of the Roman Catho lics. He (Mr. O'Lochlen) found, on the contrary, that so far from th ere h av i ng been any exclus i ve pr i v i lege o f t h at description, all these corporations had originally been chartered for the benefit of the inhabitants at large, without reference whether they were Protestants or Catholics. It had also been stated in the course of the debate that the forty corpora tions established by James I. had been established exclusively for Protestant purposes. In refutation of this position he need only refer to the speech of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) when introducing the Irish Reform Bill in 1832, where it was expressly combated. The report to which the Hon. and Learned Member for Exeter had referred distinctly stated that the object of the charters of James I. was that they should affect the respectable inhabitants of the towns generally. Where, then, did the Hon. and Learne d Gentle man get the mater i als for his statement that those charters were granted for the benefit of Protestants exclusively ? Another statement of the Hon. and Learned Member was that, having deprived the Corporations under this Bill of the right of electing sheriffs, they had been deprived of all share in the administration of justice; and the Hon. and Learned Member asked what was left of power to the Corporations ? Why, they were still left the power of levying rates for local purposes and of managing the revenues thus created, and the maintenance* of the peace as far as the functions of the mayor were concerned. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had asked on what principle Belturbet had been in cßluadroendeti,nhotwheeveßr,icllo,m‘pvahrile the e A excise revenue t was excluded ; and he seemed at th e same t i me to th i n k t h at Belturbet was so who ll y that place of n am ee w m o p rt a h ris and td with hewo one uld findci- which that t itu r e insignificant as no t to d eserve being included. Let th e Hon. ißt b to Parli ament, and ma i nta i ne d undisturbed its corpora r returned wase d of not ts i t c m t and em bers trifling a tion. The excise revenue in 1824 of Belturbet was 20,136/. ; in 1835, 23,6481. ; while the revenue of Tamworth was, in 1824, 2,7861. ; in 1835, 3,0371.—( Hear.) The excise duty paid by Middleton in 1834 was 82,2621. The effect of the argument of the Right Hon. Baronet would be to exclude all Roman Catholics from the exercise of the elective franchise in the boroughs; yet this was in direct contradiction to the spirit of the Act of 1829, which expressly declared Roman Catholics eligible to all offices, and the object of which was, to relieve them from all political disabilities, for he (Mr. O'Loghlcn) could not suspect the Hon. Baronet of having passed that Act of Emancipation, knowing at the same time that the Roman Catholics could not be affected by it, and de termining, too, that they should not hereafter be affected by it. One great source of opposition to the Bill had been done away with by the administration of justice having been taken out of the hands of the town council. The only objection now remaining was to the town councils having the disposal of the corporate funds. But in many towns considerable relief was afforded by this ,arrangement—in Youghal, for instance, where there was a revenue of 900,000/. belonging to the Cor poration rendered useless to the town, while a sum of 600,000/. was regularly levied under the 9th Geo. IV.—( Hear.) Much had been said in the course of the debate on the influence exer cised by the Roman Catholic Clergy at elections. But were the Roman Catholic Clergy the only Clergy who thus inter fered? He (Mr. O'Log,hlen) remembered that on the first re turn of the Hon. and Learned Recorder of Dublin for the University of that city, a letter was:written by the Rev. C. Boyton on the subject of his exertions in behalf of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in which the Rev. Gentleman stated that it had been mainly owing to him that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had been elected. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman disclaimed having availed himself of the "No Popery" cry; yet his committee room had been pla carded from top to bottom with bills to that effect.--( Question. ) 'He (Mr. O'Loghlen) had not been the first to introduce this subject • but when he heard Hon. Gentlemen on the other side night after night make statements as to the interference of the Roman Catholic priesthood in elections, he thought it only fair that he should have the opportunity of showing that not the Catholics only had been in the habit of interfering.— (Hear, hear.) This was not a measure interesting to Ireland and to Irish Members only; it was one of equal importance to this country. If to Ireland was denied the extension of the principle of corporation reform, what a powerful argu ment would that fact present in the mouth of a Minister of England of whom some measure of reform should be re quested ? A Minister so situated wouln say that the mea sure sought for could not be granted to England, because, as the principle could not be extended to Ireland, discontent would be the consequence. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the third reading Against it 199 Majority 6l While strangers were excluded an additional clause was proposed, declaring the validity of the Dublin Pipe-water Debenture, but it was negatived without a division. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. Mr. CURTE S wished to know from the Noble Lord how he intended to proceed with the English Tithe Bill ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was his intention to have the Bill re-committed on Wednesday, pro forma, and to have the discussion taken upon it on Friday, the 22d of April. Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice that on the second read ing of the Northern Railroad Bill he should call the attention of the House to the non-compliance with the standing orders, notwithstanding the report of the committee on the Bill. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY. The Great Northern Railway Bill was read a first time. The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Two o'clock. RAMSGATE-MONDAY. During last night the wind blew very hard at S. S.E.,'ac companied by rain, which, towards morning, increased to a strong gale. This day, about eleven o'clock A.m., his Majes ty's packet the Ferret, from Calais for Dover, came into this port, having on board Lord Duncan, carriage, and several passengers, who were landed here. The French mail-packet La Poste, came in also from Calais this afternoon, and landed her bags and passengers. Neither of these vessels were able to get into Dover on account of the boisterous weather. During the last few days a great number of vessels have put in for shelter ; at present there are about 130 sail of different descriptions in this harbour. • SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. TA TTERSALL'S. Brother to Nell Gwynne, who is reported to have been tried on Friday last, has been backed freely in the course of the last two or three days, both for the Riddlesworth and Derby, and is now con siderably in advance of the prices quoted in our paper of Friday last,: his advance appears to have shaken the confidence of those who stand upon other favourites ; for, with the exception of two or three trifling outside bets, nothing wa,s done yesterday worth notice. For the Portland Handicap, Rioter has resigned his shortlived su premacy, and is now only nominally . at 6to 1 ; Sheet Anchor, Holnsea, Pelops, and Revenge, are in force. Closing odds as follow : EIDDLESWORTH, P. T. (MONDAY NEXT.) 2 to 1 agst Ld Jersey's Brother to Nell Gwynne Nothing else is mentioned for this stake. TWO TIZOUSAND GUINEAS STAKES, P.P. 6 to 4 on Lord Lichfield's Elis agst Brother to Nell Gwynne, not p. p. —tak en. TOE TORTLAND HiNDICAr, r.r. 5 to 1 agst Mr. Mostyn's Birdlime—offered 5 to 1 agst Mr. Cooke's Sheet Anchor—take 11 to 2 6 to 1 agst Lord Chesterfield's Hornsea—taken freely 6 to 1 agst Lord Warwick's Pelops--taks 7 to 1 6 to 1 agst Mr. Etwall's Revenge—taken 6to 1 agst Mr. Sowerby's Rioter—no backers No others mentioned. THE DERBY. 6 to 1 apt Mr. Ridsdale's lot—offered 6 to 1 agst IA Jersey's Bro. to Nell Gwynne—taken 8 to 1 agst Mr. E. Peel's The Mummy—offered 25 to 1 agst Lord Lichfield's Delphine colt—take 30 to 1 30 to 1 agst Duke of Richmond's Sepoy—taken 30 to 1 agst Mr Chifney's The Athenian—taken 30 to 1 agst Mr. Allen's Master of the Rolls—offered 40 tie 1 apt Colonel Peel's Slane—taken Offers to back Mendizabal and Bamfylde at 20 to 1 each 500 even between Slane and Delphine CHELTENHAM SPRING MEETING, SATURDAY. The Segrave Stakes of 10 sovs. each, with 20 added, for hunters that have regularly hunted with Lord Segrave's hounds in 1835 and 1836. Thorough bred horses to carry 141 b. extra. Glou cestershire Stakes Course ; gentlemen riders ; four leaps over hurdles ; horses to be ridden by their owners ; the winner to pay half the expense of the hurdles. 5 Subs. Mr. Pearce's Drover Owner 1 Captain V. Jenkins's Topsy 2 Colonel Charretie's ch. g. Mr. Braham... A Hack Xtakes of A sovs. each, with 20 added. Heats, one mile. list. 71b. The winner to be sold for 30 sovs. Gentlemen riders or yeomen. 6 Subs. Mr. Fowell's ch. m. Bessy Owner 1 2 0 1 Mr. Cookes's b. g. Cockfighter 3 1 0 2 Mr. Cottrell's Blank Mr. Jones's b. m. The Duchess 4 4dr The Hunters' Stakes of 10 cove. each, with 20 added, for any horse that shall have started in either of the two Steeple Chases ; 12st. each ; gentlemen riders. The same course as the Segrave Stakes, with the same leaps; the winner of the first Steeple Chase to carry 10lb. extra, and of the second 41b. extra 3 subs. Mr. Patrick's Single Peeper Mr. Patrick 1 Captain V. Jenkins's Brush 2 A Sweepstakes of 10 sovs. each, with 10 added, for horses not thorough bred. About . one mile and three quarters. Three yrs-old, Ost. 71b. ; four, lOst. 61b. ; five, list. 41b. ; six and aged, 12st. A winner to carry 101 b. extra. Gentlemen riders. 5 Subs. Mr. Phelps's b. g. Walker, aged Mr. Jones 1 Mr. Yearsley's br. g. Chance, 5 yrs STAMP DUTIES BILL.—The Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the Stamp Duties was read a first time last night, and ordered to be read a second time on the 11th of April. A FEMALE THIEF-TAKER.—On Monday last, at the Merionethshire Assizes, a man, named William Wil liams, was sentenced to be transported for life for stealing a mare. The Judge (Baron Gurney) thanked and compli mented the principal witness, a woman, called Williams, in the name of the public and the country at large, for her courageous and praiseworthy conduct in stopping the mare, and appre hending the prisoner. Died yesterday, at Gateacre, near this town, Henry Roscoe, Esq., Barrister at Law, aged 37, the youngest son of the late William Roscoe, Esq. We have never recorded the death of any person with more sincere regret, for we have rarely heard of any man whose life was more actively useful, and whose character was more free from fault than Mr. Ros coe's. His legal talents and attainments were of the highest order. The political opinions of Mr. Roscoe, (like those of the rest of his accomplished family,) were liberal, and they were avowed with the manliness which characterised his life. When the Commission for investigating the Municipal Cor porations was issued, he was selected as one of the Commis sioners, and he performed his duty with courage and fidelity. Tender and manly feelings were admirably mingled in his dis position ; he possessed the rare combination of genius andin dustry. Mr. Roscoe has left a widow and two children.— Liverpool Chronicle. THE EUPHRATES EXPEDITION.—The following is an extract of a letter from an officer of his Majesty's ship Columbine, dated Malta, 7th March :—" The difficulties and obstructions which the expedition may still meet with on the Euphrates, will be chiefly those of rapids or falls in the river, and attacks from the predatory tribes of Arabs frequenting the banks. Colonel Chesney has, however, already obtained the good-will of some of their chefs, and if they should become persuaded of the ultimate advantages to themselves by the opening of this channel for commerce, the steamers may pass down unmolested. Ibrahim Pacha was at Aleppo raising troops ; he has already a large force on the Karamania coast, chiefly in the vicinity of Jersoos, where hostilities between him and the Turkish army are anticipated. It is said that he purposes forming a depot or arsenal at Scandaroon, and he is now building extensive barracks at Payas, a small town on the coast, about three miles from the former place. Ibrahim re ceived the visit of the officers of the expedition with much affability, and appeared to be anxious to assist them in every wa y • whether his motives for his unus u al c i v ility b e disinte rested or not, will be found out by and bye. Scandaroon is about 40 miles from the mouth of the Orontes, the original landing place of the expedition. About half way between the town and Payas, stands the ruin of an arch, supported by two pillars, reported (but on what authority I know not) to have been erected in commemoration of the deliverance of Jonah from the whale's belly, this being the spot where the said whale is supposed to have run on shore.—Devonport Te legraph. SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. Another glorious majority has sealed the triumph of Re form. The Irish Municipal Reform" Bill passed the House of Commons last night, after an animated debate, by 260 votes against 199, showing a majority which is considerably larger in proportion to the numbers in the House than the one against Lord F. Egerton's " instruction." The Go vernment was supported on that occasion by a majority of 64 votes in a House of 550 members—the members pre sent on this division were 4.59, and the Ministerial majority 61. But the majority would not only have been relatively, but also absolutely larger than the former one, but for the unavoidable absence of several Liberal members. The two Messrs. Ord, Messrs. Ruthven, Bodkin, and Hoskins, were absent from illness ; other members have been mentioned to us who were absent from other causes, and, on the whole, the'result of the division is most gratifying to the friends of Reform, and must carry proportionate dismay into the ranks of its enemies. The most forcible and brilliant speech de livered last night was undoubtedly that of Mr. Sheil ; and the cold and measured periods of Sir Robert Peel con- stituted but a poor reply to the convincing and genuine eloquence of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. Mr. Ward exposed the whole merits of the question in a speech which is well worthy the attention of our readers, and the sophistical arguments of the Tory Leader were ably met in the concluding address of Mr. Sergeant O'Loghlen. Sir Robert Peel was by no means happy last night ; perhaps the consciousness of being engaged in a hopeless cause dis- pirited him. The crack - Tory - speech of the evening was undoubtedly that of Sir William Follett. The debate of last night did not exhibit the Tories to much advantage. The cause of their hostility to the measure was sufficiently obvious throughout the discussion. The Reformers have gained by Municipal Reform in England and Scotland, and they would gain also by Municipal Reform in Ireland. But the inre I d a day w n h o i t c h s a in so has as been many f words, found we beneficial oppose a inEngland nglamea suren d and Scotland, because it would add to the strength of the Reformers. And yet they might as well have stated this at once, for they could urge nothing in th e s h a p e o f ar gument against the measure. The majority of the Irish are Catholics, and to give power, they say, to the . majo rity would be to place the minority at their mer c y. B ut the majority of the English are Protestants ; and who would think of opposing Corporation Reform in England because the Protestant majority might oppress the Catholic minority ? But then there is a difference between Protes tants and Catholics! So it would appear, and yet we were , not aware that after the Catholics had been admitted to all the privileges of citizens, their religion could still be urged as a reason for making a distinction be tween them and Protestants in matters of civil right. Another argument equally feeble was urged, that Ireland differed in many respects from England. But because the condition of Ireland is not identical with that of England, is this a reason for withholding from Ireland the benefit of local administrations ? If municipal corporations be con ducive to the prosperity and welfare of a country, and Ire land is not so prosperous as England, there is only the more reason for communicating the benefit of these insti tutions to the sister island. The argument, in fact, lies in a nutshell, and no one can be at a loss to discern both the motives of the Tories and the weakness of their arguments. The country will watch the proceedings of the Assembly to which the Bill is now consigned with intense anxiety.— Morning Chronicle. The opposition given to the Irish Municipal Bill strik ingly resembles an argument once used in the Hou.se . of Commons against the abolition of slavery, by an extensive slave-owner. This dealer in human flesh defended the barbarous traffic by endeavouring to show the vices and wicked propensities of the negroes. " You can have no idea," said he, "of the depravity of this perfidious race. Will you believe it, that many of them, preferring death to slavery, after they have been purchased and paid for, either stab themselves or jump into the sea ? By these means the pUrchasers are exposed to great loss. But this is only one instance of the perfidy of this abominable race." With a similar spirit, and equally cogent reasoning, the opponents of the Irish Corporation Bill pour forth the most virulent calumnies against the Roman Catholics, and charge them with sedition and rebellion, because they do not rest tranquil under the undeniable wrongs and persecution of which they are the victims. With the Tories it is persecution to be deprived of the power of persecution, and on th is principle they contend, that to admit the Roman Catholics of Ireland to an equal participation in municipal govern ment, is to perpetrate the grossest outrage on the old cor porators, who have so long enjoyed a vested interest in the plunder of their fellow-citizens. This, according to a con temporary, is "the main and valid objection ; the pretended principle is not the true principle, and the whole measure is nothing better than a downright fraud." Such is the of fensive trash diurnally belched forth, and from which every mind of common sense and decency turns with disgust. The pretended principle, it is asserted, is not the true prin ciple, because the basis of the measure being equal rights to all without reference to religious creed, the Protestant minority, or rather faction, cannot exert any dominant sectarian influence, but must be content with a share of municipal government proportionate to their num bers and property. Is this the infliction of a wrong ? Are we to be mocked with the semblance of religious liberty, and precluded from the reality ? How can the Roman Catholics of Ireland be expected to remain tranquil, while treated as a degraded race, unworthy of admission to the rank of citizens ? What is the chief cause of agitation, riot, and bloodshed in Ireland ? Persecution in every shape and kind—the persecution of landlords, Churchmen, and. Orangemen. Hitherto the whole system of Irish govern ment has been nothing but persecution, and yet the op pressed are censured for not quietly submitting - to the op pressor. " Strike where I may," said the drummer to a sol dier whom he was flogging, " I cannot please you." The same complaint is made against the population of Ireland —they evince equal symptoms. of inquietude by whatever hand the lash is inflicted. In the debate last night there were no new arguments adduced on either side. The speeches of Messrs. Shaw and Lefroy evinced the usual portion of rabid intolerance. These are the gentlemen whose ex ertions are really the best calculated to advance a Repeal of the Union ; for in endeavouring to withhold equal rights from the whole population of Ireland, they furnish the best justification for seeking a separate Legislature. It is objected to the extension of laws to Ireland similar to those of England, that while the latter enjoys the blessings of social liberty, the former is cursed with terrorism and slavery ? But are the horrors into which misgovernment has plunged the country to be alleged as a reason why a better system should not be established ? Are the igno rance, degradation, and crime consequent upon unjust laws, to be admitted in excuse for their continuance ? Let it be remembered, that resistance to oppression is a duty—and there are seven millions of Roman Catho lics in Ireland influenced by this sentiment. Is it safe or just to coerce them ? Have we the power, if we have the \ will ? Shall we make them rebels, when by a just policy we can bind them in the indissoluble bonds of affection and respect for the Government which protects and secures them the enjoyment of their civil and religious rights ? In fact, there has not been any argument brought forward against the measure—the whole opposition is based_ upon abuse and calumnious assertion, too fulsome to be re plied to, and which can have no other effect than to gain for their promulgators general ignominy and execration. The debate in the Commons is intended solely as an expe riment to prove to what extent the Lords may carry their hostility. But we caution them, for their own sakes, not to provoke a collision. Hereditary legislation is a subject that cannot bear discussion, and every time it is mooted the public become more convinced of its absurdity and fraud.— forning Advertiser. It is with feelings of deep regret we have to an nounce that our worthy and highly esteemed townsman, the Rev. Dr. John Scott, who has been minister of the Mid Parish Church for upwards of forty years, died here this morning, at six o'clock.—Greenock Infelligencer. HATS OFF SOLDIERS.—Under this title a dialogue has been published, in which the Mayor of Scarborough is made to play a part so ridiculous, that no person who knows that gentleman could, for a moment, suspect that he would be guilty of the egregious folly, which it suits the purpose of a Tory paper to insinuate against him. Some artillerymen are introduced as being desirous of getting the Mayor's signa ature to certificates entitling them to pensions. Mayor—Set jeant, tell those fellows to take their hats off. Serjeant—Why , Sir, they saluted you as soldiers always do. Mayor—Tell them to take their hats off, I say. Serjeant—A soldier never takes off his cap, Sir ; it is against the regulations of the ser vice. Mayor--Mind, I have not signed their certificates, and perhaps I may not; do you know who I am? Serjeant—Yes. Sir, very well. I dare say you will do your duty, but I must do mine. .1f the Commander-in-Chief were here, I dare not order a soldier to take his cap off. Mayor—D—n the Corn wander-in-Chief, what do I care for him ? Bu t—, and as if a bright thought had struck him, his worship rang the bell vio lently, and on the appearance of his factotum, roared at the top of his voice, Will, bring my hat. The hat was brought ; the representative of Majesty quickly put it on, and exultingly cried, Now we are even, I can sign the certificates; to which he accordingly affixed his sign m anual. THE WIGAN BEER BARREL.—WC do liope that cur neighbours in Wigan will make a strenuous and determined. cart at the next election to free themselves from the disgrace which is now brought upon their town by the sad and frequent exhibitions made in the Commons by their Tory Member. It is a m elancholy spectacle to behold such degrading. exposures even in private life, but in a public man it is revolting and in tolerable._. iverpool Chronicle. The passage across the King's Ferry on the Dee is now effected by Mr. Bowdell's invention. On a recent occa sion, two stage-coaches and eight horses were taken across, w ithout either unharnessing the horses, the coachman leaving The coaches were driven, on t t } h o e v b .e o s x s , e o l ro of t n r y a n ti s m it e a b t e a in in g o l d o e s r t a . te speed, and after making . the passage, were driven off again in the same manner.— Cambrian.